Tax Aggressiveness and Politically Connected Company
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i14.4294Abstract
This study investigates the tax aggressiveness in politically connected companies. Based on the relation-based system, politically connected companies tend to be more tax aggressiveness due to its benefit of being a tax aggressiveness. Using 625 companies-years observations, we reveal that politically connected companies listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange are likely to be more aggressive in tax. Applying the independent t test, however, there is no significant difference between politically connected companies and non-connected companies. The finding also indicate that the profitability is higher for politically connected companies rather than non-connected. Contract to profitability, politically connected companies’ leverage is lower than nonconnected. This study has theoretical and practical implications and they discuss in detail in this article.
Keywords: Tax Aggressiveness, politically connected companies, Indonesia
References
Adhikari, A., Derashid, C., & Zhang, H. (2006). Public policy, political connections, and effective tax rates: Longitudinal evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(5), 574–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2006.07.001
Carpenter, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. (2001). Top management teams, global strategic posture, and the moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 533–545. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069368
Chen, S., Chen, X., Cheng, Q., & Shevlin, T. (2010). Are family firms more tax aggressive than non-family firms?? Journal of Financial Economics, 95(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.02.003
Darmadi, S. (2013). Do women in top management affect firm performance? Evidence from Indonesia. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 13(3), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-12-2010-0096
Darmadi, S. (2016). Ownership concentration, family control, and auditor choice: Evidence from an emerging market. Asian Review of Accounting, 24(1), 19–42.
Desai, M. A., & Dharmapala, D. (2009). Corporate tax avoidance and firm value. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(3), 537–546.
Dyreng, S. D., Hanlon, M., & Maydew, E. L. (2010). The effects of executives on corporate tax avoidance. Accounting Review, 85(4), 1163–1189. https://doi.org/10. 2308/accr.2010.85.4.1163
Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D., & Shrader, C. B. (2003). Board of Director Diversity and Firm Financial Performance. Corporate Governance, 11(2), 102–111. https://doi.org/10. 1111/1467-8683.00011
Erickson, J., Park, Y. W., Reising, J., & Shin, H. H. (2005). Board composition and firm value under concentrated ownership: The Canadian evidence. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 13(4), 387–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2004.11.002
Foong, S., & Idris, R. (2012). Leverage, product diversity and performance of general insurers in Malaysia. The Journal of Risk Finance, 13(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10. 1108/15265941211254462
Habib, A., & Muhammadi, A. H. (2018). Political connections and audit report lag?: Indonesian evidence. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 26(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-08-2016-0086
Haleblian, J., & Finikelstein, S. (1993). Top Management Team Size, Ceo Dominance, and Firm Performance: the Moderating Roles of Environmental Turbulence and Discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 844–863. https://doi.org/10. 2307/256761
Hanlon, M., & Shane, H. (2010). A review of tax research. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 50(2–3), 127–178. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2010. 09.002
Hanlon, M., & Slemrod, J. (2009). What does tax aggressiveness signal?? Evidence from stock price reactions to news about tax shelter involvement. Journal of Public Economics, 93(1–2), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.09.004
Harymawan, I. (2017). Why do firms appoint former military personnel as directors?? Evidence of loan interest rate in militarily connected firms in Indonesia. Asian Review of Accounting, 26(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-07-2016-0086
Hutchinson, M., & Gul, F. A. (2004). Investment opportunity set, corporate governance practices and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10(4), 595–614. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1199(03)00022-1
Jackling, B., & Johl, S. (2009). Board structure and firm performance: Evidence from India’s top companies. Corporate Governance, 17(4), 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-8683.2009.00760.x
Kim, C., & Zhang, L. (2016). Corporate Political Connections and Tax Aggressiveness. Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(1), 78–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846. 12150
Kim, J., Li, Y., & Zhang, L. (2011). Corporate tax avoidance and stock price crash risk?: Firm-level analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 100(3), 639–662. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.07.007
La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate Ownership Around the World. The Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082. 00115
Lanis, R., & Richardson, G. (2011). The effect of board of director composition on corporate tax aggressiveness. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 30(1), 50– 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2010.09.003
Lanis, R., & Richardson, G. (2012a). Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness?: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 31(1), 86 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2011.10.006
Lanis, R., & Richardson, G. (2012b). Corporate social responsibility and tax aggressiveness: a test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513571311285621
Mak, Y. T., & Kusnadi, Y. (2005). Size really matters: Further evidence on the negative relationship between board size and firm value. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 13(3), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2004.09.002
Minnick, K., & Noga, T. (2010). Do corporate governance characteristics influence tax management?? Journal of Corporate Finance, 16(5), 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jcorpfin.2010.08.005
Murphy, K. (2004). Aggressive tax planning?: Differentiating those playing the game from those who don’t. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 307–329. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0167-4870(03)00011-4
Prawira, I. F. A. (2017). Corporate governance and tax aggresiveness, an evidence on manufacturing companies in Indonesia. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 5(2), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijaes.v5i2.8132
Rajan, R. G., & Zingales, L. (1998). Which capitalism? Lessons from the East Asian crisis. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 11(3), 40–48.
Richardson, G., Taylor, G., & Lanis, R. (2016). Women on the board of directors and corporate tax aggressiveness in Australia:An empirical analysis. Accounting Research Journal, 29(3), 313–331.
Sánchez-Marín, G., Portillo-Navarro, M.-J., & Clavel, J. G. (2016). The influence of family involvement on tax aggressiveness of family firms. Journal of Family Business Management, 6(2), 143–168.
Short, H., & Keasey, K. (1999). Managerial ownership and the performance of firms: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Corporate Finance, 5(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1199(98)00016-9
Wahab, E. A. A., Ariff, A. M., Marzuki, M. M., & Sanusi, Z. M. (2017). Political connections , corporate governance , and tax aggressiveness in Malaysia. Asian Review of Accounting, 25(3), 424–451. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-05-2016-0053
Wahab, E. A. A., Zain, M. M., & Rahman, R. A. (2015). Political connections?: a threat to auditor independence?? Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 5(2), 222– 246. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-03-2012-0013
Yuan, G., McIver, R. P., & Burrow, M. (2012). Corporate income tax aggressiveness in China: regulatory environment and ownership impact. Journal of Business Management, 5, 144–161.
Zaitul, & Ilona, D. (2018). Gender in Audit Committee and Financial Reporting Timeliness?: the Case of Unique Continental European Model. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(2.29), 436–442.
